Former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. [Photo: FILE]

Former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has raised concerns about the proposed Referendum Bill, claiming it is outdated and restrictive.

While making a submission on the document yesterday, he said he was somewhat astounded by the quality of the draft.

He claimed that parts of the bill appear to have been taken from another period in time.

He also claimed several provisions were draconian in nature, and also pointed to the alleged absence of any reference to digital platforms including social media. Instead, he claimed the bill refers to tools such as loudspeakers which are rarely used today.

Sayed-Khaiyum also claimed Fiji’s existing constitution underwent a lengthy consultation process.

“Unlike the current narrative that is currently being flaunted all over the media and amongst many politicians, the 2013 constitution was, in fact, had about seven years of consultations. And the reason why I say it was seven years of consultation.”

Sayed-Khaiyum said the country has never held a referendum. He noted the 1970 Constitution was negotiated in London without direct public input.

He said the 1990 Constitution was rushed and lacked proper consultation. He added it was widely seen as fundamentally flawed. The 1997 Constitution, he said, also did not involve a referendum.

Sayed-Khaiyum claimed the consultation process included the People’s Charter, the National Council for Building a Better Fiji and the Yash Ghai Commission.

He claimed there were 1,256 consultations at village and settlement level and further claimed there were also more than 7,000 written submissions and over 100 public hearings.

He claimed that level of engagement led to the inclusion of referendum provisions. He added that constitutional changes should not be left only to politicians.

Sayed-Khaiyum said the purpose of a referendum is to reflect the will of the people. He stressed that public discussion and debate are essential. He said citizens must be free to understand and discuss proposed changes.

He claimed the current bill undermines that purpose and restricts public discussion and further claimed it allows only those proposing the referendum to speak.

He pointed to provisions that he claimed could make it illegal for more than five people to gather to discuss the referendum.

The former AG further claimed police could arrest people without a warrant and that this approach was contrary to democratic principles.

He also claimed the bill conflicts with constitutional rights, and further claimed that it breaches freedom of speech and expression.

He noted these rights include the ability to share information, express opinions and engage in public debate.

Sayed-Khaiyum claimed the bill contradicts these protections.